Number of planned low-orbit satellites NOW EXCEEDS ONE MILLION

ARTHUR FIRSTENBERG, NOV 1, 2023
https://arthurfirstenberg.substack.com/p/number-of-planned-low-orbit-satellites?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2

On Sunday, SpaceX launched 23 satellites from Cape Canaveral in the morning, and 22 more from Vandenberg Air Force Base in the evening. This brought the total number of operating satellites irradiating the Earth to about 8,800.

SpaceX has been sending up satellite-laden rockets every few days this year, in its haste to satisfy an insatiable demand for bandwidth by the billions of human beings who use cell phones. But SpaceX is not the only one. Hundreds of companies are competing for a share of the global market to supply Internet from the sky to the world’s population.

On January 5, 2022, I sent out a newsletter listing 147 companies and government agencies from 34 countries that were operating, launching, or planning fleets of satellites that, if they were all launched, would total about half a million in our skies, far outnumbering the visible stars. On October 17, 2023, the journal Science, reviewing filings with the International Telecommunication Union, informed the world that the number of filings and the number of planned satellites have again more than doubled. There are more than 90 filings for constellations of over 1,000 satellites each. Twenty-three have over 5,000 satellites, and eight have over 10,000 satellites. As of December 31, 2022, the number of satellites being planned by 300 companies and governments exceeded one million. And in June, 2023, E-Space, a company based in France and founded by Greg Wyler in 2022, filed a plan for a single megaconstellation containing 116,640 satellites. E-Space had previously filed a plan, via the government of Rwanda, for an even larger constellation containing 327,320 satellites. Two days after his new filing with the ITU, Wyler clarified that “Our filing in France is in addition to our filings in Rwanda.”

Our new network, People Without Cell Phones, is more important than ever. The only way to diminish the demand for bandwidth that is turning the Earth into a giant computer, with all living beings electrocuted inside of it, is to stop using cell phones. Not to use them less frequently, but to throw them away. The ability to use them, no matter how infrequently, requires the entire planet to be irradiated. Please join our network by forming a local chapter where you live. You can set your own rules, but it is important to have meetings in person. Please contact me if you need help and let me know that you are doing it. Our goal is to establish an expanding global presence of communities that do not use cell phones. It is up to us. #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

Arthur Firstenberg
President, Cellular Phone Task Force
Author, The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life
P.O. Box 6216
Santa Fe, NM 87502 USA
phone: +1 505-471-0129
arthur@cellphonetaskforce.org

November 2, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel | Leave a comment

Lawyers circle nuclear startup NuScale over claims a 24-reactor deal will fail

Short seller brands blockchain firm Standard Power a “fake customer”

October 27, 2023 By Peter Judge https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/lawyers-circle-nuclear-startup-nuscale-over-claims-a-24-reactor-deal-will-fail/

Nuclear power startup NuScale is facing investigation by lawyers after a short-seller’s report alleged that it has sold 24 reactors to a “fake customer.”

NuScale announced a deal earlier this month to supply blockchain firm Standard Power with 1,848MW of power provided by 24 of NuScale’s small modular reactors (SMRs), to power two US data center sites.

Last week its share price dropped around 10 percent after a scathing report from short seller Iceberg Research claimed that the deal, estimated at $37 billion, had “zero chance of being executed.” The shares bounced back around six percent earlier this week, when NuScale responded, saying the Iceberg claims were “riddled with speculative statements with no basis in fact.”

NuScale has contracted to provide Standard Power with 1,848MW of power, but Iceberg predicts Standard Power will be unable to support the contract. Among other things, Iceberg points out that Standard Power’s CEO Maxim Serezhin has an outstanding $54k tax warrant in New York, rendering his assets vulnerable to seizure, adding that a former Standard Power leader, Adam Swickle, was found guilty of securities fraud in 2003.

The Standard Power deal is massively bigger than NuScale’s only other contract, with the government-backed Carbon Free Power Project (“CFPP”) to provide Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”) with 462MW, and is also bigger than Standard Power’s other major deal, a 200MW contract for nuclear power at Shippingport Pennsylvania.

Iceberg says NuScale has “around 15 months before its cash runs out,” and says the UAMPS contract is reaching a crucial stage, claiming: “NuScale has been given till around January 2024 to raise project commitments to 80 percent or 370 MWe.”

Iceberg also cast doubt on NuScale’s commercial partner Entra1, saying it was set up in 2021 to finance NuScale reactors, has only one employee, and was “very unlikely to be able to finance even a portion of this contract.”

NuScale said it “will not engage in a point-by-point rebuttal of every falsehood,” but issued statements on several points, saying that NuScale has a “solid balance sheet,” and that US Department of Energy (DOE) support for the CFPP “has advanced our SMR technology to the point of commercialization.”

DOE support has been a key factor in NuScale’s development, helping it bring nuclear power down to a commercial price point, however, the price of nuclear electricity from its projected plans has been creeping up, from an initial estimate of $55 per MWh to around $90 per MWh, making it less competitive.

Iceberg suggests that it may not be able to fully deliver without further support from the US government, which it says will “dilute” shareholder value. NuScale went public with a SPAC in May 2022.

Lawyers investigated NuScale on behalf of investors over “possible violations of federal securities laws,” include Howard G. Smith, which issued a press release this week, and Rosen Law Firm, which is planning a class action lawsuit. These releases are classed as “attorney advertising.”

Overall shares in NuScale have fallen around 75 percent since their peak in late 2022, from around $14 to around $3.5.

October 29, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | legal, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Space debris

https://interconnectedrisks.org/tipping-points/space-debris 25 Oct 23

Thousands of satellites orbit the Earth, gathering and distributing vital information for weather monitoring, disaster early warning systems and communications. Recent technological advancements have made it easier and more affordable for countries, companies and even individuals to put satellites into space. Satellites make our lives safer, more convenient and connected, and represent critical infrastructure that is now essential for a functioning society. However, as the number of satellites increases, so does the problem of space debris, which poses a threat to both functioning satellites and the future of our orbit.

Space debris consists of various objects, from minuscule flecks of paint to massive chunks of metal. Out of 34,260 objects tracked in orbit, only around 25 per cent are working satellites while the rest are junk, such as broken satellites or discarded rocket stages. Additionally, there are likely around 130 million pieces of debris too small to be tracked, measuring between 1 mm and 1 cm. Given that these objects travel over 25,000 kilometres per hour, even the smallest debris can cause significant damage. Each piece of debris becomes an obstacle in the orbital “highway”, making it increasingly difficult for functional satellites to avoid collisions.

Key Numbers

8,300 functioning satellites in orbit

34,260 tracked objects in orbit

25,000 kilometres per hour travel speed

The danger is more than just theoretical. In 2009, a collision between a defunct satellite and an active communications satellite created thousands of debris pieces that still orbit Earth today. This debris can impact other objects, such as the International Space Station, which conducts manoeuvres around once per year to avoid such debris. Satellites can be warned of impending collisions; in fact, the European Sentinel-2 satellite registered more than 8,000 alerts between 2015 and 2017. Collision avoidance even between active satellites can also be difficult since agencies often need to communicate and quickly come to agreements. For example, in 2019, a European Space Agency satellite had to perform an emergency manoeuvre to avoid colliding with a communications satellite after an agreement with the operator could not be reached.

More than 100,000 new spacecraft could be launched into orbit by 2030, compared to the approximately 8,000 we have now. As more satellites are launched, the orbit becomes more crowded, increasing the risk of collisions. Each collision creates millions more pieces of debris, which can then collide with other debris or satellites, creating even more shrapnel. Eventually, this will reach a point where one crash sets off a chain reaction, causing our orbit to become so dense with shrapnel that it becomes unusable. The existing space infrastructure would eventually be destroyed and future activities in space could become impossible.

Space is the final frontier, and with countries and companies racing to stake their claim, we must consider what kind of future we want to create. If we continue on the current trajectory, we risk sacrificing Earth’s orbits and the opportunities they offer to society now and in the future. Importantly, we must regulate space launches more strictly and ensure that satellites and other spacecraft are disposed of responsibly, while also investing in technologies for tracking and removing orbital debris. By coming together as a global community to treat Earth’s orbits as a precious common good, we can safeguard our future in space before it is too late. #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 26, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Reference, space travel | Leave a comment

NUSCALE POWER ($SMR): A FAKE CUSTOMER AND A MAJOR CONTRACT IN PERIL CAST DOUBT ON NUSCALE’S VIABILITY.

As of now, there are only two operational SMR plants in the world — located in Russia and China — and both have experienced cost blowouts and delays. NuScale claims approximately 680 issued and pending global patents. But the company does not have an operational SMR and the only revenue it generates comes from the reimbursement of specific R&D activities.

Considering Fluor’s plan to divest its NuScale stake and the apparent lack of substantial activity at Entra1, one could speculate that Standard Power and Entra1 were brought in primarily to pump NuScale’s stock, just like many other SPACs.

October 19, 2023 · by Iceberg Research

Main Findings

NuScale, a developer of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR), recently disclosed a huge contract with blockchain datacenter service provider Standard Power. The deal aims for a projected capacity of 1,848 MWe that we estimate is worth ~$37bn. This contract has zero chance of being executed as Standard Power clearly does not have the means to support contracts of this size. Its managing director Adam Swickle was found guilty of securities fraud in the past. Entra1 — NuScale’s commercial partner — is expected to help with the funding. The company was created in 2021 and it is very unlikely to be able to finance even a portion of this contract.
NuScale has a more credible contract with the Carbon Free Power Project (“CFPP”) for the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”). CFPP participants have been supportive of the project despite contracted energy prices that never seem to stop rising, from $55/MWh in 2016, to $89/MWh at the start of this year. What many have missed is that NuScale has been given till around January 2024 to raise project commitments to 80% or 370 MWe, from the existing 26% or 120 MWe, or risk termination. Crucially, when the participants agreed to this timeline, they were assured refunds for project costs if it were terminated, which creates an incentive for them to drop out. We are three months to the deadline and subscriptions have not moved an inch.
NuScale has around 15 months before its cash runs out. We fully expect further shareholder dilution, as completion of the CFPP remains an iffy prospect with its constant cost overruns. On 13 October 2023, former CFO Chris Colbert sold the last of his NuScale stake.
We believe these commercial and financial struggles present hurdles NuScale won’t cross without continued support from the Department of Energy (“DOE”). This presents a double-edged sword. Even if that support continues, the DOE’s usual policy is that costs have to be shared with the private sector, meaning that existing shareholders will be diluted.

Presentation of NuScale

NuScale Power Corporation, based in Portland, Oregon, has been developing small modular nuclear reactors (“SMRs”) since 2007. In May 2022, the company went public through a merger with SPAC Spring Valley Acquisition Corp. NuScale’s market cap stands at ~$1.2bn. This valuation combines both Class A and Class B shares, which can’t be traded unless converted to Class A. Fluor Enterprises Inc, NuScale’s parent company, holds 126 million Class B shares that represent 55.8% of NuScale’s voting power.

SMRs have power capacities of up to 300 MWe per unit while conventional nuclear reactors generate around 1,000 MWe. For example, NuScale’s design is 77 MWe. These SMRs come with lower upfront costs because of their smaller size. But this benefit is offset by lower economies of scale compared to conventional reactors.

Over the last 16 years, NuScale has spent ~$1.6bn to develop its SMR tech, funded by a mix of SPAC money, government grants, and private investments. The Department of Energy (“DOE”) has contributed over $650m of grants to NuScale’s endeavors.

The company is going toe-to-toe with industry goliaths like Westinghouse, Rolls-Royce, EDF, etc. But it managed to snag the first-ever Standard Design Approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2020 – a 12-module plant at 50 MWe each. However, in August 2023, the company decided to switch the blueprint – a six-plant design featuring an uprated 77 MWe. NuScale is now waiting for the new design’s approval, which would take ~24 months according to the company.

As for customers, NuScale has two significant contracts. The first is a 462 MWe agreement with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (“UAMPS”), a consortium that supplies wholesale electricity to around 50 municipalities, priced at $9.3bn. The second is a 1,848 MWe deal that was recently signed with blockchain datacenter service provider Standard Power, with an estimated value of ~$37bn.

New client Standard Power: Crypto mixed with nuclear energy – What could possibly go wrong?

On 6 October 2023, NuScale’s stock popped over 20%, after the company announced its largest-ever contract, to deliver 24 units of 77 MWe modules in 2029. As part of this agreement, NuScale’s commercial partner Entra1 would develop, manage, own, and operate these SMRs, while blockchain datacenter service provider Standard Power would be the end-user.

The deal’s total projected output is 1,848 MWe, four times the size of NuScale’s existing agreement with its other major client UAMPS, and translates to a staggering $37bn financial commitment. Considering there are only two operational SMR plants globally, one in China and the other in Russia, this agreement not only marks a significant achievement for NuScale but also holds the distinction of being the largest SMR contract ever.

Unsurprisingly, the sell-side cheerleaders have applauded this deal…………………………….

Both Standard Power and Entra1 present obvious credit and performance risks.

1) Standard Power

Standard Power was formed in 2018 to provide data centre services for blockchain mining and high performance computing applications.

According to its LinkedIn page, the company operates with just 30 employees.

Searching the internet suggests that Standard Power’s most significant partnership to date was with Cipher Mining. In 2021, the company signed a hosting agreement with Cipher ‘to provide a total mining capacity of at least 200 MW’. This deal ultimately fell apart as the contract was terminated in February this year (see below on original).

In addition, Standard Power’s management team raises some serious red flags, especially when it comes to their managing director, Adam Swickle.

Swickle has a track record that screams “investor beware”. He cut his teeth at notorious Wall Street firms like Stratton Oakmont and Meyers Pollock & Robbins — both infamous for pump-and-dump schemes and ultimately shuttered due to regulatory crackdowns.

In 2003, the SEC went after Swickle for setting up a fake foreign exchange trading house and making off with investors’ cash. As the CEO of United Currency Group, from May 2001 to December 2002, he conducted a fraudulent offering of securities based on misleading info. This included the company’s plans for an IPO, Swickle’s own background, and how corporate funds would be used. …………………………………………………………………………..

Taking these factors into consideration, it appears that Standard Power does not have the balance sheet to support this contract, both in the present and in the future.

2) ENTRA1

NuScale portrays Entra1 as having a “strong global pipeline of energy production projects” and a ““one-stop-shop” for the financing, investment, development, execution, and management of NuScale-powered projects and opportunities”, suggesting that Entra1 will finance the Standard Power contract.

Entra1 was incorporated in Delaware in December 2021. But the firm has only one employee referenced on LinkedIn, its online presence is almost non-existent, its Twitter account is essentially a NuScale bulletin board, and its only announced deal is unsurprisingly, with NuScale.

At a recent Analyst/Investor Day event, it was disclosed that Wadie Habboush, the founder of Entra1, has a longstanding personal relationship with NuScale’s CEO, John Hopkins. Around 10 years ago, Habboush formed a joint venture with Fluor — NuScale’s controlling shareholder — for projects in the Middle East e.g., Iraq. We can’t see how experience working on Middle Eastern projects would be directly transferable to managing a $37bn mega-SMR project in the US.

Fluor, NuScale’s controlling shareholder, has been open about its intention to reduce its stake (55.8%) in the company. Its long-term plan is to own only 20%-25% of NuScale as per EVP Joseph Brennan on Fluor’s 3Q22 call. He further elaborated in 4Q22 that Fluor had “kicked off the strategic exercise” and the company would be in a better position to discuss that at the end of 1Q23. There were no updates on Fluor’s 2Q23 call.

We believe that the contract with Standard Power has zero chance of being executed. Announcing a deal with such counterparties damages the credibility of a company in an industry where public trust is paramount. We doubt established players like Westinghouse would deal with a questionable client like Standard Power.

The situation at the Carbon Free Power Project is much worse than what NuScale lets on

Unlike Standard Power, the Carbon Free Power Project (“CFPP”) started off as a sound counterparty. The project was launched in 2015 by the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), as part of its long-term strategy to reduce carbon emissions and replace outdated coal-fired plants. If completed, the Idaho Falls plant will begin generating power in 2029, and will deploy six, 77-MWe modules to generate 462 MW of electricity by 2030. Its development and construction is funded under a cost-share agreement between the DOE and UAMPS.

Originally, between 2016 and 2020, NuScale priced the power at $55/MWh. Then, the price was raised to $58/MWh when the project was downsized from 12 reactor modules to just six (924 MWe to 462 MWe). By December 2019, 35 UAMPS members had signed on for 200 MW of power. But escalating costs have caused these numbers to shrink. As of March this year, there were 26 participants, and subscriptions dropped to ~120 MW (see appendix for table), representing 26% of the project’s total capacity.

The shocker came in January this year when new cost estimates pushed that figure up by 53%, setting it at $89/MWh. NuScale attributed the significant increase to a 75% rise in estimated construction costs, from $5.3bn to $9.3bn, caused by factors such as commodity price inflation and higher interest rates. The actual cost would be much higher, if not for more than $4bn in subsidies the project expects to get from US taxpayers, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

The good news for NuScale is that the participants extended their commitment and accepted the revised cost. On NuScale’s 1Q23 earnings call, CEO Hopkins stated, “Right now, we feel very comfortable with that $89 megawatt hour.”

What was generally overlooked in the press is that the agreement includes conditions that essentially kick the can down the road, and endanger the project. The extension (Pg 4) states that NuScale must raise subscription levels from its current 120 MWe (26% of total capacity) to 370 MWe (80% of total capacity), on the earlier of the combined license application (“COLA”) submission, or 1 February 2024. ……………………………………………..

UAMPS member Idaho Falls laid out the stakes at its council meeting (Pg 4) in February. If NuScale fails to meet the subscription target, and costs continue to go up, so does the risk of project termination………………………………….

Key to the extension is this condition: participants will be refunded their costs if the 80% threshold is not reached. Now, with this new clause, they have a strong financial incentive to withdraw if NuScale fails to meet the subscription target.

NuScale has around three months to the deadline but is nowhere near the 80%. In August 2023, the company told news outlet Power that “no changes have occurred since March”. At a September meeting of the Washington City power board, when asked about subscription progress, director Rick Hansen said (1:01:10-1:04:00) that “Not anybody that’s able to or willing to sign at this point.” He added. “We have lots of cheerleaders but not a lot of people that want to jump in the game at this point.” Interested parties want additional mechanisms to de-risk it, according to him. This suggests no one has signed on since March.

The contract that has lent NuScale credibility is hitting a wall. The company seems to echo this sentiment, based on recent language in its 10-Q, which now adds: “While it is reasonably possible we will be required to pay these amounts, no accrual has been recorded in our financial statements.”…………………

Specifically, NuScale had a capped financial obligation’ of $83.5m to UAMPS. As of the end of June, this looming liability was around $37m.

Even if the project continues, NuScale’s $89/MWh commitment adds further financial risk. The nuclear reactor industry has a notorious history of cost overruns and delays during the construction stage. NuScale has not built a SMR yet so there’s no reason to believe the company will defy industry norms. For equity holders, this is uncomfortable, as they will bear the brunt of these performance shortfalls and costs.

NuScale’s heavy cash burn will lead to shareholder dilution

NuScale’s financial position appears increasingly shaky under the uncertainty hanging over the CFPP. The company has around 15 months of cash, based on its end-June cash balance of ~$215m, and LTM operating cash flow of negative $167m. That runway could stretch to ~26 months if the company maxes out its $150m at-the-market equity line, announced on 9 August 2023. But this does not account for potential CFPP cost repayments………………

We fully expect further shareholder dilution. Completion of the CFPP remains an iffy prospect, and given NuScale’s track record with cost overruns, that seems almost inevitable.

Against this backdrop, we noted that former CFO Chris Colbert has been selling his shares since May 2023, fully unloading his stake on 13 October 2023 – reaping total gross proceeds of ~$1.7m over this period. This could be a leading indicator of NuScale’s unspoken issues. …………

Conclusion

NuScale’s delusional contract with Standard Power seems more like an act of desperation to shore up investor confidence, rather than a strategic move. The company is struggling and we believe its equity has little to no value without government support. Even if that support continues, the DOE’s usual policy is that costs have to be shared with the private sector, meaning that existing shareholders will be diluted.

Importantly, the DOE holds a non-exclusive worldwide license to NuScale’s intellectual property, according to financing agreements. This creates the possibility that the DOE could simply transfer this intellectual property to a more established player, if NuScale is unable to meet performance obligations. ……………………..

We are short NuScale……………………………

Appendix………….. https://iceberg-research.com/2023/10/19/nuscale-power-smr-a-fake-customer-and-a-major-contract-in-peril-cast-doubt-on-nuscales-viability/ #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Nuclear companies sign up for space technology missions

WNN, 20 October 2023

With nuclear technology set to underpin new developments in space travel, NASA has awarded Ultra Safe Nuclear Corporation a contract to manufacture and test fuel and develop the design of a nuclear thermal propulsion engine for near-term missions. Separately, Space Nuclear Power Corporation has partnered with Lockheed Martin Corporation and BWX Technologies for the US Space Force/Air Force’s JETSON nuclear electric propulsion demonstration project, while Framatome has announced the creation of a new brand, Framatome Space.

……………………………………………………………………..The JETSON – Joint Emergent Technology Supplying On-orbit Nuclear Power – nuclear electric propulsion demonstration project was launched in January when the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)/Space Vehicle Directorate issued solicitations to industry for high and low-power spacecraft concepts and designs using nuclear fission, rather than solar panels, for propulsion. On 3 October, the AFRL awarded Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse Government Services and Intuitive Machines LLC separate contracts totalling over USD53 million to develop the technologies and spacecraft concepts.

………………………………………………………………………………The JETSON – Joint Emergent Technology Supplying On-orbit Nuclear Power – nuclear electric propulsion demonstration project was launched in January when the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)/Space Vehicle Directorate issued solicitations to industry for high and low-power spacecraft concepts and designs using nuclear fission, rather than solar panels, for propulsion. On 3 October, the AFRL awarded Lockheed Martin, Westinghouse Government Services and Intuitive Machines LLC separate contracts totalling over USD53 million to develop the technologies and spacecraft concepts.

………………………….Framatome joins space race

Framatome has announced the creation of Framatome Space, which it said is putting the French company’s 65 years of nuclear and industrial expertise at the service of the space industry. The company is already supporting the French Alternative Energies & Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) and Ariane Group with a feasibility study on an nuclear thermal propulsion engine and earlier this year announced plans with USNC to form a joint venture to manufacture TRISO particles on a commercial scale………………………………………………………… https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Nuclear-companies-sign-up-for-space-technology-mis #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel | Leave a comment

Many years before floating nuclear power plants could become viable.

King’s College leads workshops on floating nuclear power plant challenges
in Southeast Asia. King’s staff joined nuclear leaders in Indonesia, the
Philippines and Thailand to explore why it will be many years before these
technologies will be viable.

Kings College London 19th Oct 2023

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/kings-leads-workshops-on-floating-nuclear-power-plant-challenges-in-southeast-asia #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | technology | Leave a comment

Burned-up space junk pollutes Earth’s upper atmosphere, NASA planes find

Space.com, By Tereza Pultarova, 19 Oct 23

Chemicals created by fiery satellite re-entries could affect Earth’s climate.

Scientists have long thought that the burning up of space junk in Earth’s atmosphere creates air pollution that can affect the planet’s climate. Now, for the first time, they’ve managed to detect the presence of these pollutants in the air high above our planet.

A team of researchers flew high-altitude NASA aircraft over Alaska and the U.S. mainland to sample the chemical composition of the thin air in the stratosphere, the second-lowest layer of Earth’s atmosphere, which extends from about 6 miles to 30 miles (10 to 50 kilometers) above the planet’s surface.

The planes, NASA’s WB-57 and ER-2 aircraft, allowed the researchers to reach altitudes of up to 11.8 miles (19 km), which is about five miles (9 km) above the cruising altitude of commercial airliners.

Sensitive sensors in the nosecones of the planes analyzed the chemical compounds diluted in the thin, pristine stratospheric air, which is out of reach of Earth-based air pollution sources. The researchers found traces of lithium, aluminum, copper and lead in the sampled air. The detected concentrations of these compounds were much higher than what could be caused by natural sources, such as the evaporation of cosmic dust and meteorites upon their encounter with the atmosphere. In fact, the concentrations of these pollutants reflected the ratio of chemical compounds present in alloys used in satellite manufacturing, the researchers said in a statement.

“We are finding this human-made material in what we consider a pristine area of the atmosphere,” Dan Cziczo, a professor of Earth, atmospheric, and planetary sciences at Purdue University in Indiana and one of the authors of the study, said in the statement. “And if something is changing in the stratosphere — this stable region of the atmosphere — that deserves a closer look.”

In recent years, scientists have been sounding alarm bells about the possible effects of the rising number of rocket launches and satellite re-entries on the upper layers of Earth’s atmosphere. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday (Oct. 16). https://www.space.com/air-pollution-reentering-space-junk-detected #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 23, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel | Leave a comment

Why are Small Modular Nuclear Reactors a Dog’s Breakfast of Designs?

SMRs Information Task Force, 18 Oct 23 https://preview.mailerlite.com/i0i8d4u0o3/2327788063679321961/y8d5/

As of 2023 roughly 50 small modular reactor (SMR) designs are under development, with electrical generating capacity varying between 5 and 300 megawatts.

Compared to the current generation of larger nuclear reactors, SMRs would require smaller capital investments and provide options for deployment at remote locations with smaller power demands. But as reactor size goes down, unit cost goes up, as does the amount of radioactive waste per unit of electricity generated.

Different technology options attempt to address the concerns that plague the nuclear industry: safety, cost, radioactive waste, and weapons proliferation. However, designing for “passive safety”, opting for “waste recycling”, or providing “proliferation resistance” all involve trade-offs. With no clear “best” design, and no sizeable market, there is no justification for building a factory to mass-produce “modular” components to bring down costs.

SMR promoters have steered the debate away from these issues, arguing that all options for addressing climate change must be on the table. More SMR designs mean more opportunities to secure public subsidies.

The Government of Canada appears to have accepted the “all options” argument, and by funding multiple SMR designs is contributing to the illusion of profitability. Canada’s nuclear regulator, despite its limited capacity for technical assessment of SMR designs, has opted to boost them through largely inconsequential “vendor design reviews.”

More than 80 years have passed since the first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. All proposed SMRs are essentially variations on older reactor designs that were tested decades ago and eventually abandoned.

The World Nuclear Industry Status Report concludes that SMRs “will likely face major economic challenges and not be competitive on the electricity market.” #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 19, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | 1 Comment

Small modular nuclear reactors: Unlikely, unaffordable, dirty and dangerous

So local jobs may only amount to security, cutting the grass, and periodic reactor maintenance with possible radiation exposure.

The Appalachia Peace Education Center in Abingdon considers the small reactors a bad idea. Here’s why.

by Rees Shearer, October 16, 2023 https://cardinalnews.org/2023/10/16/small-modular-nuclear-reactors-unlikely-unaffordable-dirty-and-dangerous/

A year ago, Gov. Glenn Youngkin came to Bristol to announce proposals from his new Virginia Energy Plan. He declared, “A growing Virginia must have reliable, affordable and clean energy for Virginia’s families and businesses.”

As a requisite to achieving those goals, the Governor proposed four small modular nuclear reactors for the Southwest Virginia Coalfields. But SM[n]Rs fail to meet the governor’s three laudable goals.

SM[n]Rs cannot be reliably licensed and constructed for a decade or more. No commercial SM[n]R has been successfully licensed. There are competing designs and even the Governor said the project would take 10 years. Nuclear power has a notorious history of construction and licensing delays. That means no new nuclear energy generation for at least a decade. There can be no reliable generation when the plant is not up and running. Solar energy and energy storage on restored mine lands can be brought online in a fraction of that time.

SM[n]Rs are unaffordable. At utility scale, the electricity energy standard, Lazards Levelized Cost of Energy, rates nuclear as the most expensive means to generate electric power. It’s not clear whether nuclear waste management, insurance, and decommissioning are included among the costs. The Nu-Scale reactor, under construction in Idaho, is the only SM[n]R even close to licensing. Between 2016 and 2023, NuScale’s estimated power cost increased 60%. That’s in addition to $4 billion in subsidies from U.S. taxpayers. The latest nuclear project to come online (seven years late), Georgia Power’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4, exceeded cost projections by 120%. It’s unclear how much of the cost overruns customers will be forced to shell out. Nuclear power construction history shows an unfailing correlation between new designs and cost increases and project delays. Youngkin is opting for new technology designs. SM[n]Rs will not be affordable and Apco and Dominion Energy try to make sure customers bear the costs, even if the SM[n]R project is canceled before generating one Watt. The LCOE shows solar and on-shore wind, even adding battery storage, are the lowest cost sources of new power generation.

SM[n]Rs are dirty and dangerous. SM[n]Rs produce plutonium 239, the most lethal element in high-level nuclear waste. A Stanford University study concluded that “small modular reactors may produce a disproportionately larger amount of nuclear waste than bigger nuclear plants.” That element is deadly for a quarter million years, a horrifying legacy. There is no permanent storage solution. Just to maintain this waste is already costing taxpayers and utility customers tens of billions of dollars. Additionally, plutonium 239 is the key element in proliferation of nuclear weapons and nuclear terrorism. There is risk of radiation leaks or a catastrophic accident. This becomes all the more concerning, given the proximity of sites already evaluated as potential SM[n]R locations to Southwest Virginia schools, neighborhoods, and downtowns. The governor proposes reprocessing the waste, which adds transportation and terrorism risks.

But what about jobs, you may ask? Modular design means that the reactors would be manufactured in one central location. Modules would be transported by truck to reactor sites. Then a specialized crew, moving from site to site, would assemble the reactor. At most, ground preparation will be the work for local contractors. What about high skill nuclear technology jobs the Governor is touting? A spokesperson at NuScale Power, eagerly anticipated, “NuScale developed the information needed to obtain NRC approval that allows up to 12 NuScale Power Modules to be operated remotely from a single control room.” So local jobs may only amount to security, cutting the grass, and periodic reactor maintenance with possible radiation exposure.

The Clinch Coalition is a leading regional voice for transparency and opposition to SM[n]Rs. The Coalition developed satellite videos (available at their website), demonstrating the risky proximity of homes, a school and businesses of three of seven SM[n]R sites proposed in a study by LENOWISCO Planning District Commission.

Gov. Youngkin could have proposed solar farms on restored mine lands. When combined with current technology battery storage, solar generates reliable, affordable and clean power — 24/7, installed and maintained by a local workforce — today. Just what the governor said he wanted.

Rees Shearer is a 40-year member of the Appalachian Peace Education Center in Abingdon. He writes this on the center’s behalf in response to the Sept. 9 opinion piece: “Virginia’s clean energy revolution begins in Southwest.” #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclearfree #NoNukes

October 18, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, USA | Leave a comment

Ten reasons why nuclear power has no future.

by Sam Arnold and Ann McAllister, https://nbmediacoop.org/2023/10/11/commentary-ten-reasons-why-nuclear-power-has-no-future/October 11, 2023

Nuclear power is dirty and dangerous now, and for many generations to come. The following ten reasons state why nuclear has no future.

Nuclear power is too slow to help mitigate the climate crisis. A 2022 report by the National Academies of Science found that most advanced reactors, including small modular nuclear reactors (SMNRs), “will confront significant challenges in meeting commercial deployment by 2050.” In contrast, the Burchill Wind Farm near Saint John took three and a half years from partnership to full deployment. Canada’s target to reduce carbon emissions by 40 to 45 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030 is looming. Renewables with storage, energy efficiency and conservation, demand-side management, and interties such as the Atlantic Loop can provide reliable baseload electricity. To wait for the SMNR silver bullet, which may never come, is to court climate catastrophe.
Nuclear power is too expensive compared to alternatives. Wind and solar both undercut nuclear power rates. The authoritative Lazard energy analysis for 2023 costed storage-backed onshore wind and solar at US $42 to $114 per megawatt-hour, compared to nuclear power at US $141 to $221. Power from SMNRs will probably be more expensive than electricity from large nuclear plants with their history of cost increases. Crucially, SMNRs can’t take advantage of the economies of scale which large reactors do. There are orders for only single SMNRs, making it unlikely that multiple units will ever be built.
Chronic exposure to radioactive pollutants emitted from nuclear power plants can damage human health. The thyroid absorbs radioactive iodine as readily as non-radioactive iodine, putting children at particular risk of thyroid disease and cancer. Chronic exposure to radioactive materials, even at low doses, increases the incidence of cancer, leukemia, anemia, genetic damage, immune system damage, strokes, heart attacks, and low intelligence.
Liquid sodium and molten salt reactors pre-dating the ARC and Moltex SMR designs were unreliable and dangerous. Internationally, sodium reactors have not performed reliably; one in Russia experienced repeated fires. In the 1960s, the US Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (1965-1969) operated at only 40 per cent capacity compared to 90 per cent for the average US commercial nuclear power plant.
Nuclear power does not work effectively with renewable energy. A University of Sussex study of 123 countries over 25 years found that countries that invested in renewable energy reduced more carbon emissions than countries with large percentages of nuclear power. Contrary to the claim that nuclear energy and renewables work well together, the study found that they “crowd each other out.”
Radioactive waste remains an unsolved conundrum and will be an ongoing cost to taxpayers far into the future. Deep geological repositories (DGRs) for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste fuel are not operational anywhere in the world, including Finland and Sweden. The two locations Ignace and Saugeen Ojibway Nation under consideration in Ontario are opposed by many, including Indigenous peoples. A little-known fact is that while the waste fuel is the responsibility of the federal government, the provinces are responsible for the steel and concrete building materials which will ultimately become radioactive rubble. Would Canadians accept having a nuclear waste dump in or near their community?
Many Indigenous leaders and First Nations are skeptical of nuclear reactors, nuclear waste, environmental risks, and groundwater contamination posed by the long-term storage of such wastes. First Nations in Ontario and Quebec do not want radioactive waste from New Brunswick in their territories. Federal and provincial governments have a history of not consulting First Nations and ignoring their concerns about nuclear installations. The Peskotomukhati Nation at Skutik and the Wolastoq Grand Council are firmly opposed to nuclear development. Nuclear does not align with their sacred principle of caring for the next seven generations.
Transporting radioactive waste long distances to a proposed geological repository would come with higher costs and increased risk of accidents. The transport distance from Point Lepreau to a DGR proposed for northern Ontario could exceed 2,000 km. Considering the frequency of accidents involving transport trucks and freight trains, how would you feel about radioactive loads passing your home several times weekly for the next 40-plus years? To prevent such catastrophes, decommissioned nuclear reactors and their accumulated wastes must be stored safely in their present location.
Nuclear weapons are dependent on energy from the plutonium produced at nuclear power plants, making them partners in all nuclear weapons produced. Moltex Energy’s technology for separating plutonium, the explosive in atomic bombs, from nuclear waste fuel increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation. Moltex’s claim that the plutonium would be too impure for use in nuclear weapons has been discredited in a 2022 report from the US National Academy of Sciences and Medicine. The experts stated that the method might delay the plutonium’s use in weapons, but would not prevent it. Nine US non-proliferation experts who advised six US presidents warned the Trudeau government that plutonium separation “will undermine the global nuclear weapons non-proliferation regime that Canada has done much to strengthen.”
The cost of decommissioning nuclear reactors must be added to all expenses incurred at every link in the nuclear chain, from mining and fuel fabrication to perpetual waste storage, from domestic safety and security to international proliferation prevention, from policy to regulation, from design to final disposition. Taxpayers are paying for these cumulative costs, so the tally must be made public.
Knowing the environmental dangers and financial and social liabilities nuclear power will impose on us and our descendants should galvanize us to demand that government regulations act in the public’s best interest.
Sam Arnold and Ann McAllister are with the Coalition for Responsible Energy Development in New Brunswick (CRED-NB). #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants

October 13, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | technology | Leave a comment

New Brunswick small nuclear tech could be used for nuclear war: physicist.

John Chilibeck, Local Journalism Initiative reporter|, Brunswick News, 11 Oct 23

A physicist from British Columbia is warning that New Brunswick is heading down a dangerous path, increasing the likelihood of a nuclear war by supporting the development of small reactors for export.

M. V. Ramana, a professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security at the University of British Columbia, says the two companies that are trying to develop small modular reactors at Point Lepreau near Saint John – Moltex and ARC – use technology that could one day be used to make nuclear weapons.

If those reactors fell in the wrong hands, he says, humankind could be put at risk.

“All reactors use plutonium and many of them use enriched uranium. Both of these processes can also be used to produce weapons material,” the academic said from the Vancouver airport on Wednesday, a day ahead of his lecture at St. Thomas University in Fredericton at 7 p.m. at the Kinsella Auditorium, McCain Hall. “The other issue is personnel. People working with reactors can learn to make nuclear weapons. And lastly, in many countries, it’s the same institutions that are involved in developing nuclear energy as developing nuclear weapons.”

Ramana cited the country of his birth, India, which ostensibly developed reactors for peaceful purposes through its Department of Nuclear Energy but after a couple of decades started making weapons out of the material to counter the influence of Pakistan, which it has fought four wars against since independence in 1947.

He also mentioned Iran, which first acquired the technology for nuclear energy in the 1970s when the Shah was in power and the country was friendly to the West. Following the revolution of 1979, religious extremists took over who now sponsor terrorist attacks around the world – such as the Hamas raid last weekend that left 1,000 Israeli citizens and soldiers dead – and also want to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

New Brunswick, he said, could unwittingly undo years of international efforts to stop nuclear proliferation once the ARC and Moltex technologies are ready, expected sometime around 2030 or a few years after.

Despite a long history of producing nuclear energy, Canada has never made nuclear weapons. Ramana said that could change if the wrong politicians came to power.

“Look at what happened on January 6, 2021 at the Capitol Building,” he said of the attempted insurrection in the United States. “I don’t think anyone thought that would ever happen. And we don’t know who will be in power in Canada in 30 years.”

Moltex and ARC have made no secret of their desire to create prototype reactors in New Brunswick that could one day be made and sold to other places, both within Canada and to other countries. It’s part of their business model.

Rory O’Sullivan, the CEO of Moltex, recently wrote a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rebutting the criticisms of a group of anti-nuclear non-proliferation academics from the United States.

Ottawa has already provided Moltex $50 million to develop its technology, and New Brunswick $5 million. It will likely need more public investment to keep developing its technology…………………………..

“Imagine one day they export reactors to South Korea, or Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria, whatever country you want to think about it. When they send the reactors abroad, they’ll have to send the fuel for those reactors, and they have a very large amount of plutonium. A country could get the reactor and the plutonium and say, ‘we’re going to use the plutonium to make nuclear weapons,’ there’s very little we can do to sanction that country.”– said Ramana #nuclear #antinuclear #NuclearFree #NoNukes #NuclearPlants

October 12, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, Small Modular Nuclear Reactors | Leave a comment

Endless electricity and water use: the Artificial-Intelligence-Blockchain-Data Centre -Nuclear-NuScale nightmare to come

Blockchain biz goes nuclear: Standard Power wants to use NuScale reactors for DCs

Please, no crypto boom, thank you

The Register, Tobias Mann, Sun 8 Oct 2023 #nuclear #anti-nuclear #nucler-free #NoNukes

Colocation outfit Standard Power hopes to power two new datacenters in Ohio and Pennsylvania entirely by miniaturized nuclear reactors from NuScale.

Standard Power makes no secret it focuses on providing datacenter services to not just those into AI workloads and other kinds of high-performance computing but also those performing proof-of-work blockchain mining, the kind needed to craft digital tokens like Bitcoin. The significant energy requirements of this type of blockchain work spurred an investigation by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy last year, and calls by lawmakers to implement reporting and/or sustainability requirements for such operations.

Generally speaking, a datacenter packed with proof-of-work miners is going to demand a chunky amount of power. Concerned it may not get adequate electricity supplies for its new facilities, which by the sounds of it will support blockchain mining as well as other workloads, Standard Power said it hopes to take the nuclear option.

“We see a lot of legacy baseload grid capacity going offline with a lack of new sustainable baseload generation options on the market especially as power demand for artificial intelligence-computing and datacenters is growing,” Standard Power CEO Maxim Serezhin said in a statement.

And the colo outfit’s Ohio and Pennsylvania datacenters may need or get a lot of power. The company expects to deploy 24 of NuScale’s small modular reactors between the two sites. These reactors are reportedly capable of generating 77 megawatts apiece — putting the total deployed capacity at 1,848 megawatts.

Despite the announcement, it may be a few years before Standard Power can realize its nuclear dreams. As we learned in January, Idaho National Labs will be among the first to demonstrate NuScale’s reactors, and the first of these modules isn’t expected to come online until 2029. We asked Standard Power when it expects its facilities will be operational; we’ll let you know if we hear anything back…………………………………..

Standard Power is hardly the first datacenter operator to get excited about nuclear power, either. Cumulus Data opened a datacenter next to a nuclear plant — the full-size kind — in January and last month we learned that Microsoft is now hiring someone to potentially deploy SMR systems to power its growing cloud enterprise. https://www.theregister.com/2023/10/08/standard_power_nuclear_datacenter/

October 10, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | ENERGY, technology, USA | 1 Comment

Star Wars? Learned professor speaks of threat to peace in space

https://www.nuclearpolicy.info/news/star-wars-learned-professor-speaks-of-threat-to-peace-in-space/ 6 Oct 23 #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes

Space-based weapons and nuclear-powered space vehicles might seem the stuff of Science Fiction but many of the leading militaries in the world now have ‘Space Commands’, an armed service dedicated ‘dominance’ in the world of space. Representatives from the UK/Ireland Nuclear Free Local Authorities heard today about the threat to peace now being posed by the increasing militarisation of space.

Professor Emeritus Dave Webb was the guest speaker at the October meeting of the NFLA Steering Committee. Dave is the former Chair of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and is now the Convenor of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space. Established in 1992, the network is an international body of academics and activists opposed to the militarisation and the use of nuclear power in space.

In 1999, the United Nations General Assembly declared that October 4-10 every year would be designated as ‘World Space Week’ to ‘celebrate the contributions of space science and technology to the betterment of the human condition’; in response the Global Network designates 7-14 October as ‘Keep Space for Peace Week’.

Despite being signatories to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which prohibits nuclear weapons in space; limits the use of the Moon and all other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes; establishes that space shall be freely explored and used by all nations; and precludes any country from claiming sovereignty over outer space or any celestial body, many of the world’s leading powers have established new military commands to establish a presence in space.

With communications, navigation, command-and-control, surveillance, espionage, and the detection of threats being reliant on signals beamed from space, each of the world’s major powers wants to be able to ensure that its satellites remain safe from electronic interference, sabotage, or destruction, whilst over time being able to develop the capability to destroy those of their adversaries in time of war.

As militarisation continues, tensions between the powers engaged in this space race will increase and so war will become more likely. This year’s theme for ‘Keep Space for Peace Week’ reflects one such source of tension – the increasingly crowded skies above our Earth.

Professor Webb explains: “This year we are highlighting the danger posed to peace by our crowded Low Earth Orbit.

“In 1985 – 1988, there were about 5,000 – 6,000 objects in orbit, there are now about 27,000 and this figure is increasing rapidly. Elon Musk’s Space X has launched about 12,000 satellites and various other companies are now planning 71,000 more.

“The United States being especially aggressive in working to secure as many of the remaining slots as possible, seeking to freeze out its rivals generating resentment. The Global Network is currently engaged in legal action in the US to pressure the Federal Communications Commission to follow the law and conduct environmental impacts assessments before approving any further launches,

6th October 2023

Star Wars? Learned professor speaks of threat to peace in space

Professor Webb explains: “This year we are highlighting the danger posed to peace by our crowded Low Earth Orbit.

“NASA scientists have warned that growing space debris could lead to likely-cascading collisions in orbit, however accidental. This ‘Kessler Syndrome’ could lead to military tensions as collisions would often involve space vehicles of competing nations, and retaliation and further escalation might result.”

In readiness for possible future warfighting in space, the UK Government has also established a Space Command as the fourth branch of the armed forces, with a mission to ‘protect and defend UK and allied interests in, from, and to space’.

UK government funding is also backing research at the Universities of Bangor and Southampton to develop nuclear propulsion systems for the next generation of rockets and Rolls Royce has received a grant to develop a nuclear power plant for deployment at a future crewed moon-base. In addition, seven space ports are in development in the UK, five in Scotland, one in Snowdonia, and one at Newquay.

The NFLAs have real worries about the use of the space ports for military purposes and the deployment of nuclear power in space.

NFLA Steering Committee Chair, Councillor Lawrence O’Neill explained: “With new space ports, UK Space Command will be looking to deploy more military spy satellites to further its mission, but over time a new generation of military space vehicles may be developed with the capacity to carry conventional or non-conventional weapons. Although this might seem fanciful, this pattern has been followed with drones.

“At first these unmanned aerial vehicles were used for surveillance, but they have since been developed into formidable weapons platforms bristling with missiles, with strikes guided by anonymous remote operators located thousands of miles from the battlefield; coupled with AI, they would be more formidable still as a robot never tires nor has second thoughts. Who is to say that space vehicles will not be developed in a same pattern, if left unchecked?”

The NFLAs are also concerned that a British manned moon base might be usurped for military, rather than altruistic scientific, purposes, and that any use of nuclear power there will lead to the contamination of space and the lunar surface, and pose a real of radioactive contamination if an explosion took place on Earth.

Cllr O’Neill concluded: “Any failed launch or re-entry of a nuclear-powered space vehicle could, if an explosion occurred, lead to the dispersal of radioactive contamination into our atmosphere. This fear was one of the reasons cited by the advisory body CORWM, the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, for not recommending to government any plan to blast radioactive waste into space.

“These are the many reasons why it is so important that we Keep Space for Peace.”

October 7, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | space travel, weapons and war | Leave a comment

AI Goes to War

But you can count on one thing: the new approach is likely to be a gold mine for weapons contractors, even if the resulting weaponry doesn’t faintly perform as advertised.

When such advanced weapons systems can be made to work, at enormous cost in time and money, they almost invariably prove of limited value, even against relatively poorly armed adversaries

Will the Pentagon’s Techno-Fantasies Pave the Way for War with China?

By William D. Hartung / TomDispatch, 4 Oct 23 #ArtificialIntelligence

On August 28th, Deputy Secretary of Defense Kathleen Hicks chose the occasion of a three-day conference organized by the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA), the arms industry’s biggest trade group, to announce the “Replicator Initiative.” Among other things, it would involve producing “swarms of drones” that could hit thousands of targets in China on short notice. Call it the full-scale launching of techno-war.

Her speech to the assembled arms makers was yet another sign that the military-industrial complex (MIC) President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us about more than 60 years ago is still alive, all too well, and taking a new turn. Call it the MIC for the digital age.

Hicks described the goal of the Replicator Initiative this way:

“To stay ahead [of China], we’re going to create a new state of the art… leveraging attritable, autonomous systems in all domains which are less expensive, put fewer people at risk, and can be changed, upgraded, or improved with substantially shorter lead times… We’ll counter the PLA’s [People’s Liberation Army’s] with mass of our own, but ours will be harder to plan for, harder to hit, and harder to beat.”

Think of it as artificial intelligence (AI) goes to war — and oh, that word “attritable,” a term that doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue or mean much of anything to the average taxpayer, is pure Pentagonese for the ready and rapid replaceability of systems lost in combat. Let’s explore later whether the Pentagon and the arms industry are even capable of producing the kinds of cheap, effective, easily replicable techno-war systems Hicks touted in her speech. First, though, let me focus on the goal of such an effort: confronting China.

Target: China

However one gauges China’s appetite for military conflict — as opposed to relying more heavily on its increasingly powerful political and economic tools of influence — the Pentagon is clearly proposing a military-industrial fix for the challenge posed by Beijing. As Hicks’s speech to those arms makers suggests, that new strategy is going to be grounded in a crucial premise: that any future technological arms race will rely heavily on the dream of building ever cheaper, ever more capable weapons systems based on the rapid development of near-instant communications, artificial intelligence, and the ability to deploy such systems on short notice.

The vision Hicks put forward to the NDIA is, you might already have noticed, untethered from the slightest urge to respond diplomatically or politically to the challenge of Beijing as a rising great power. It matters little that those would undoubtedly be the most effective ways to head off a future conflict with China.

Such a non-military approach would be grounded in a clearly articulated return to this country’s longstanding “One China” policy. Under it, the U.S. would forgo any hint of the formal political recognition of the island of Taiwan as a separate state, while Beijing would commit itself to limiting to peaceful means its efforts to absorb that island.

There are numerous other issues where collaboration between the two nations could move the U.S. and China from a policy of confrontation to one of cooperation, as noted in a new paper by my colleague Jake Werner of the Quincy Institute: “1) development in the Global South; 2) addressing climate change; 3) renegotiating global trade and economic rules; and 4) reforming international institutions to create a more open and inclusive world order.” Achieving such goals on this planet now might seem like a tall order, but the alternative — bellicose rhetoric and aggressive forms of competition that increase the risk of war — should be considered both dangerous and unacceptable.

On the other side of the equation, proponents of increasing Pentagon spending to address the purported dangers of the rise of China are masters of threat inflation. They find it easy and satisfying to exaggerate both Beijing’s military capabilities and its global intentions in order to justify keeping the military-industrial complex amply funded into the distant future……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

The notion that advanced military technology could be the magic solution to complex security challenges runs directly against the actual record of the Pentagon and the arms industry over the past five decades. In those years, supposedly “revolutionary” new systems like the F-35 combat aircraft, the Army’s Future Combat System (FCS), and the Navy’s Littoral Combat Ship have been notoriously plagued by cost overruns, schedule delays, performance problems, and maintenance challenges that have, at best, severely limited their combat capabilities. In fact, the Navy is already planning to retire a number of those Littoral Combat Ships early, while the whole FCS program was canceled outright.

In short, the Pentagon is now betting on a complete transformation of how it and the industry do business in the age of AI — a long shot, to put it mildly.

But you can count on one thing: the new approach is likely to be a gold mine for weapons contractors, even if the resulting weaponry doesn’t faintly perform as advertised. This quest will not be without political challenges, most notably finding the many billions of dollars needed to pursue the goals of the Replicator Initiative, while staving off lobbying by producers of existing big-ticket items like aircraft carriers, bombers, and fighter jets…………………………………………………………………….

The Pentagon has long built its strategy around supposed technological marvels like the “electronic battlefield” in the Vietnam era; the “revolution in military affairs,” first touted in the early 1990s; and the precision-guided munitions praised since at least the 1991 Persian Gulf war. It matters little that such wonder weapons have never performed as advertised. For example, a detailed Government Accountability Office report on the bombing campaign in the Gulf War found that “the claim by DOD [Department of Defense] and contractors of a one-target, one-bomb capability for laser-guided munitions was not demonstrated in the air campaign where, on average, 11 tons of guided and 44 tons of unguided munitions were delivered on each successfully destroyed target.”

When such advanced weapons systems can be made to work, at enormous cost in time and money, they almost invariably prove of limited value, even against relatively poorly armed adversaries . (as in Iraq and Afghanistan in this century). China, a great power rival with a modern industrial base and a growing arsenal of sophisticated weaponry, is another matter. The quest for decisive military superiority over Beijing and the ability to win a war against a nuclear-armed power should be (but isn’t) considered a fool’s errand, more likely to spur a war than deter it, with potentially disastrous consequences for all concerned.

Perhaps most dangerous of all, a drive for the full-scale production of AI-based weaponry will only increase the likelihood that future wars could be fought all too disastrously without human intervention. As Michael Klare pointed out in a report for the Arms Control Association, relying on such systems will also magnify the chances of technical failures, as well as misguided AI-driven targeting decisions that could spur unintended slaughter and decision-making without human intervention. The potentially disastrous malfunctioning of such autonomous systems might, in turn, only increase the possibility of nuclear conflict.

It would still be possible to rein in the Pentagon’s techno-enthusiasm by slowing the development of the kinds of systems highlighted in Hicks’s speech, while creating international rules of the road regarding their future development and deployment. But the time to start pushing back against yet another misguided “techno-revolution” is now, before automated warfare increases the risk of a global catastrophe. Emphasizing new weaponry over creative diplomacy and smart political decisions is a recipe for disaster in the decades to come. There has to be a better way. https://scheerpost.com/2023/10/04/ai-goes-to-war/

October 6, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | technology, USA | Leave a comment

UK small #nuclear competition: Rolls Royce in, Bill Gates snubbed

CITY,AM NICHOLAS EARL 3 Oct 23 #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes

Bill Gates’ nuclear reactor design company Terrapower has not been shortlisted for the next round of the government’s competition for scaled-down power plants.

Industry vehicle GB Nuclear has selected six companies to advance to the latest stage, including rumoured front-runner Rolls-Royce which has already secured over £200m in government funding.

The remaining contenders also include EDF, GE-Hitachi, Holtec Britain, Nuscale and Westinghouse Electric.

These companies will be invited to bid for government contracts later this year, with successful companies announced next spring and contracts awarded in the summer.

Gates, the world’s fifth richest man and the co-creator of Microsoft, founded Terrapower in 2006.

He is currently the company’s chairman and is still their biggest investor, leading a £588.3m funding round last year.

The company has been pitching bespoke ‘Natrium’ reactors powered by high-assay low-enriched uranium and announced its intentions earlier this year to enter the UK race for projects.

However, Whitehall officials have reportedly been concerned over insufficient supplies to import at scale to meet demand for Terrapower reactors, as most of the uranium it needs is produced in Russia – which is under sanctions following the country’s invasion of Ukraine.

City A.M. understands GB Nuclear wanted to prioritise the most ready-made technologies which could guarantee a final investment decision by the end of the decade.

Instead, Terrapower could feature in an upcoming consultation on advanced technology.

Small modular reactors are a cornerstone of the government’s plan to revive domestic nuclear energy and replace the country’s ageing fleet – with 85 per cent of the country’s current capacity set to go offline over the next 12 years.

……………………..Downing Street is targeting operational SMRs in the UK by the mid-2030s, with a £20bn cap being placed on the competitive process.

………………Downing Street is targeting operational SMRs in the UK by the mid-2030s, with a £20bn cap being placed on the competitive process. https://www.cityam.com/uk-small-nuclear-competition-rolls-royce-in-bill-gates-snubbed/

October 4, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, UK | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »